Dungeons and Deviance: an overview of incarceration

A sociological and philosophical view of deviance

To understand the need for prison reform, let us first understand the need for prisons. Eminent sociologist Emile Durkheim described deviance as a shift from the norm. The philosopher would argue about the existence of the norm, while the political scientist may argue for the power creating the norm (Erikson, 1962). Regardless of the system that has come about, a norm, once established, embeds certain expectation of conformity in society. A shift from this conformity, at extreme levels requiring detainment, has brought about the need for a prison system.

Proceeding further into the sociological underpinnings of deviance and the need for incarceration, we understand first, the kind of society that warrants a prison system. Durkheim argues with his own points on how an industrial society brings about greater division of labour, and therefore leads to interdependence (dubbed organic solidarity). He then proceeds to note that a heavy handed and rigid division of labour in itself causes ill-adjustment of social functions. Beyond this, he also argues that there is a greater divide between the holder of capital, or the master, and the labour, or the worker (Durkheim, 1969). In essence, a regulated society, regardless of the mechanistic or organic nature of society, is a scion of progress. Maintenance through forms of punishment like incarceration ensure that a particular social order or hierarchy continues to thrive.

While Durkheim's framework helps us understand why prisons emerged, modern scholars take a more nuanced view of punishment. Postmodernist interpretations of order and punishment take on less of a morality viewpoint, and instead balances multiple viewpoints- from the Marxist perspective to Foucaultian ideology. Garland (1993) puts a powerful statement forward. He insists on a fair view of punishment owing to the deeply unstable nature of societal rules, conduct and norms. In a word grappling with changing norms, there must be a propensity for change, and this argument is a powerful basis that dictates modern law and justice, and is a multidisciplinary lens with which incarceration can be argued for and against.

These ideas of society, normality and solidarity intertwine with notions of fairness, justice, and preservation and regulation of liberty to provide the perfect opening to our discussion on the prison system, incarceration, and effective punishment. With this theoretical foundation established, we can now trace how societies actually implemented systems of punishment and control.

Early prison system

Erikson (1962) notes that a singular deviant activity often acts as a catalyst for a snowball of deviant activities- threatening the order on which society was built. To maintain the fabric of order, a series of punishments were created to discourage acts of deviance.

Early prisons were usually reserved for political prisoners and high-level offenders. The precursor to the modern jail was the gaol which held everyone form petty thieves to family members of debtors. There was no distinction made based on race or gender, and it served more as a holding cell than a place for long term incarceration or reform. This chaotic system, as expected, couldn't last. Between the late 18th and early 19th century, the modern prison we know today emerged in America. Solitary confinement, hard labour and long periods of incarceration were virtually unheard of until the idea of a proto-prison was conceptualised (Rubin, 2017).

The complex political webs around corporal or public punishment caused the shift into solitary punishment. Rubin (2017) provides a brief overview of the causes of this shift, namely the fear of insurgence due to a large gathering, the fear of the smaller elite versus the larger proletariat, and the need for a ‘productive’ workforce, which led to hard labour or training inside the prison system.*

The history of the prison system, and of the law that convicted criminals is a fascinating deep dive into the norms that were considered useful to different societies at different points in time. The sociological evolution of societies is worth looking at through the lens of crime. This perspective is likely to provide insights into the economic, social and political norms of time- facets which make up the fabric of society.

*(A more comprehensive history of the prison system can be found in Rubin & Deflem (2019)’s paper. It also gives a detailed understanding of prison systems in other parts of the Western world, including French bagnes and the English system of transporting prisoners to the New World for hard labour. For a brief history of African prisons with special reference to Ghana, it is worth checking out Seidman (1969)’s book.)

Modern prisons and the cost of maintaining them

Having established how modern prisons emerged, examining their physical design reveals how punishment philosophies manifest in concrete walls and observation towers. An interesting perspective of the evolution of prisons can come from examining the architecture of the prison system. The panopticon is a well-known modern structure with a singular tower in the middle of a circular prison structure. A lone guard sits inside the tower behind a mesh such that the prisoners cannot see who he is looking at but the guard can see everyone. This constant, almost paternalistic surveillance was Bentham’s idea of a surveillance system. The implications for modern CCTV technology are best understood from the panopticon system; however, the focus here remains on traditional prisoner structure (Kietzmann & Angell, 2010). The shift to reformation is best understood from the Shrewsbury prison design which provided prisoners a small wage and rewarded good behaviour. However, harsher sentences deemed harsher punishment such as the introduction of solitary confinement in the Millbank penitentiary. But beyond the goals of reformation being the focus of the prison system, the architecture always reflected a strong need to convey the authority of the prison, and the control of life within the prison. This is evidenced by the gradual adoption of the panopticon structure at Pentonville (Jewkes & Johnston, 2007).

Hillary Cottam’s utopian prison stands against the traditional panopticon structure. While the panopticon aims to strip autonomy of prisoners, Cottam draws up plans for a more humane and habitable prison, consisting of self-contained units such that more focus can be devoted to rehabilitation of prisoners instead of shuttling them for services from one end of the prison to another (Jewkes & Johnston, 2007).

Each of these prison models- from the punitive panopticon to Cottam's rehabilitation-centered vision- comes with substantial costs. Unlike earlier centuries when punishment was swift and public, modern incarceration shifts the financial burden to taxpayers who must maintain these institutions year after year. A 2014 estimate showed $39 billion in cost to taxpayer to maintain the prison system in America (Henrichson & Delaney, 2012). This has led policymakers to focus on reducing per-inmate costs, which can only be achieved through two routes: decreasing prison populations or shortening sentences. Either approach requires careful legal consideration, grounded in sociological understandings of crime and ethical frameworks for determining appropriate punishment.

These substantial costs raise an important question; is the current system even working?

Is it effective? Need for prison reform

In contrast to the older system focused on retribution and reparations, the modern prison system aims to instil learning and reformation. But there is a prevailing need to reform the system that reforms the individual. Considering the costs of prison systems, the clear racial divide in prisons, and the misuse of laws that convict criminals, an overhauling of the system has been in the works for a while. While changing the architecture of prisons may be effective from one perspective, the internal systems created must be studied. Furthermore, the barriers to re-entry into society is a facet of the system that must be paid more attention to.

One particularly pressing barrier to reintegration is the digital divide between prison and modern society. Like any field of study, digitalization has made its marks in the realm of incarceration. A systematic literature review looks at digital rehabilitation to avoid repeat offences and to integrate inmates into society after their release (Zivanai & Mahlangu, 2022). For a world so digitally interconnected, the isolation mechanism of prisons has made it even more difficult to reintegrate into society. Which is why, scholars argue for ‘digital rehabilitation’ which aims to prepare inmate to re-enter a technologically dependent world. For an inmate that cannot integrate well into the outside world, the chance of a re-incarceration may increase, considering the limited options in employment.

Future directions

There are broad parts of literature within this space that remain unexplored and unwritten. For starters, the philosophy of deviance and history of crime is deeply interconnected with the sociological, economic and political state of a nation. As societies change, so do laws- sometimes through force (like a revolution) or gradually through norm change. Tracing a history of crime from a gendered or racial view may be an eye-opening study. Second, a number of experiments could inform the psychological nature of criminals within different prison structures. The effects of isolation, the panopticon structure, and modern rehabilitation focused structures may inform architectural choices that can contribute to reducing the rate of crime or reducing the number of criminals while ensuring wellbeing maximization. Third, as a researcher, it is always worth looking into modern advancements in rehabilitation techniques. These techniques can cover a variety of age groups and gender, even understanding geriatric criminals, and support for marginalized communities prone to crime.

In essence, the above essay traced crime as seen from a sociological, political, and architectural perspective. It is an amalgamation of complex information that draws up an incomplete, albeit useful, map of deviance and deviant activity. While it is an ever-changing landscape, it is a useful starting point for a host of interdisciplinary learnings with high potential to inform policy and law.

References

Durkheim, É. (1969). The division of labor in society. Free Press.

Erikson, K. T. (1962). Notes on the Sociology of Deviance. Social Problems, 9(4), 307–314. https://doi.org/10.2307/798544

Garland, D. (1993). Punishment as a Social Institution. In Punishment and Modern Society: A Study in Social Theory (pp. 277–292). University of Chicago Press. https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/P/bo3774479.html

Henrichson, C., & Delaney, R. (2012). The Price of Prisons: What Incarceration Costs Taxpayers Additional Sentencing Perspectives. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 25(1), 68–80.

Jewkes, Y., & Johnston, H. (2007). The evolution of prison architecture. In Y. Jewkes (Ed.), Handbook on prisons (pp. 174–196). Willan.

Kietzmann, J., & Angell, I. (2010). Panopticon revisited. Commun. ACM, 53(6), 135–138. https://doi.org/10.1145/1743546.1743582

Rubin, A., & Deflem, M. (2019). History of the Prison. 277–292. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119372394.ch20

Rubin, A. T. (2017). The prehistory of innovation: A longer view of penal change - Ashley T Rubin, 2018. Punishment & Society. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1462474517690522?casa_token=NAvvqBLmD_oAAAAA%3AsoZEy-6i0QBzWiG_tEL4-gjq5AekwniL-T52ABesw5cxiDObHQvjzXtlD3omE4DALWKFpkVTzBdE

Seidman, R. B. (1969). The Ghana Prison System: An Historical Perspective. In African Penal Systems. Routledge.

Zivanai, E., & Mahlangu, G. (2022). Digital prison rehabilitation and successful re-entry into a digital society: A systematic literature review on the new reality on prison rehabilitation. Cogent Social Sciences, 8(1), 2116809. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2022.2116809